More than a dozen states have passed new laws that led to restrictions on pornography. Now the Supreme Court will weigh
Source: CNN Politics
Published 12:00 PM EST, Sat January 11, 2025
CNN In Texas, Florida, and more than a dozen other states, users who try to access the worlds largest pornography website are greeted by a surprising sight: a message on a black screen telling them theyre blocked because of the actions of their state legislature.
Over the last two and a half years, 19 states home to more than a third of Americans have passed laws that require pornography websites to confirm a users age by checking a government-issued ID or scanning their face, among other methods.
The new laws, which have been pushed by allies of President-elect Donald Trump, have led some of the largest adult sites, including Pornhub, to block users from specific states, rather than paying millions for ID-checking services.
Next week, the Supreme Court will hear a challenge to the constitutionality of the new laws, setting up a battle over free speech, censorship and how to protect kids online. The case could end up eroding landmark precedents protecting pornography, following previous decisions from the court that have overturned decades-old case law.
Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/11/politics/invs-porn-age-verification-laws-supreme-court/index.html
Full headline: More than a dozen states have passed new laws that led to restrictions on pornography. Now, the Supreme Court will weigh in
kimbutgar
(23,777 posts)I feel no sympathy for those states.
mahatmakanejeeves
(61,942 posts)So youre fine with 43 percent of the citizens there not having First Amendment rights.
Bob_in_VA
(100 posts)The internet provider in the Memphis area, Comcast, operates their system out of Mississippi, which has that stupid, unenforceable law. So, even though that law does not exist in Tennessee (yet, but keep watching) anyone who wanted to visit a porn site couldn't, even though there is no law in TN that stops a user from seeing porn absent an ID check. Seems that Mississippi doesn't understand or care about interfering in interstate commerce. Wonder if the ACLU would be interested in pursuing it?
SWBTATTReg
(24,482 posts)cherished rights negatively?
I guess I'm going to go back to the long-asked question, where are the parents in all of this? Should they be the ones stopping their children (if they want too) in accessing this material?
PSPS
(14,218 posts)J-9
(39 posts)Print mags and dvds 🫣🤭😯